4 ms·
>if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain. Not necessarily, the A
by sebzim4500 4y ago
>if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain.
Not necessarily, the AI used to classify might be much more expensive to run than the new AI you are training. This is what Tesla does, for example. They have a massive model which they use as a 'ground truth' to train the models which can actually run in the car.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoWell, OK, there are gains in efficiency, but the context here is, as far as I understand it, letting an "AI" train a better "AI". Perhaps I misunderstand the OP and like I say in my comment above, I've seen comments to that extent pop up here and there om HN in the last few days, so maybe I'm jumping to conclusions about what the OP meant. I should have asked for clarifications (although usually when I do there's no response; not from the OP, from most users).